CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-02400.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-02400.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02400.a1

deniedSep 12, 2016· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant representing himself was denied a trustworthiness designation for a public trust position, primarily due to significant financial issues and personal conduct concerns. The denial was based on Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

The applicant admitted to possessing multiple delinquent debts totaling over $21,000. A key factor in the denial was his deliberate failure to disclose these debts on his clearance application, which the judge determined undermined his credibility and trustworthiness.

The applicant did not present any evidence of financial counseling or a concrete plan to resolve his outstanding debts. Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant failed to mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised, leading to the denial of his application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling over $21,000, which he failed to disclose in his clearance application.
The judge found that the applicant's omissions were deliberate, undermining his credibility and trustworthiness.
The applicant did not provide evidence of financial counseling or a plan to resolve his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 20(a)raisedFinancial Considerations
AG ¶ 15raisedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 21, 2015
Answer filed—Applicant represented himself (pro se) in the proceedings.
Hearing heldJun 21, 2016
Decision dateSep 12, 2016

Cite For

Deliberate Omissions in Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Financial Concerns Impacting Trustworthiness Under Guideline F
The Standard for Trustworthiness Determinations Consistent with National Security Interests.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 15-02400.a1 DATE: 09/12/2016 DATE: September 12, 2016 In Re: ------------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-02400

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On October 21, 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On June 21, 2016, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Jennifer I. Goldstein denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record and whether the Judge erred in finding that Applicant’s omissions from his clearance application (SCA) were deliberate. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant’s SOR alleges five delinquent debts, for such things as a judgment against him (over $21,000), a telecommunications account, a medical debt, a DVD subscription, and a collection account. Applicant provided no documentation to show what action, if any, he had taken to resolve these debts. Neither did he submit evidence of financial counseling, a budget, his income and expenses, etc. When completing his SCA, Applicant failed to disclose the judgment or the other delinquent debts. Applicant provided no evidence regarding his good character, work performance, or track record for handling sensitive information. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to an absence of mitigating evidence about Applicant’s debts. She stated that he presented little in the way of a track record of debt resolution, nor did he show that he had received financial counseling. Regarding Guideline E, the Judge stated that Applicant clearly knew about the judgment and other delinquent accounts, finding that his omissions were deliberate. She held that Applicant had failed to mitigate the concerns raised by his debts and omissions.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to his evidence of debt resolution. He has failed to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 14-03541 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 3, 2015). He states that he has performed his duties for many years without any question as to his integrity. However, an applicant with good or exemplary job performance may engage in conduct that has negative trustworthiness implications. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2009). Applicant states that he admitted during his clearance interview that he had answered the financial questions erroneously. To the extent that he is claiming that his omissions were not deliberate, we note first of all that, in his Answer to the SOR, he responded “I admit” to the Guideline E allegation that he had “deliberately failed to disclose any of [his] delinquent debts[.]” Item 2, SOR Answer, at 2. By itself this admission is sufficient to support the Judge’s finding. In addition, we note the following from Applicant’s clearance interview: he stated he received documents pertaining to the judgment two years before his interview, which was in 2014. Item 6, Clearance Interview Summary, at 2, 4. Therefore, he would have received these documents sometime in 2012. He completed his SCA in August 2014. Item 3, SCA, at 29. By his own admission Applicant had been aware of the largest of his SOR debts at the time that he completed his SCA. He told the interviewer that he had failed to list any of his debts due to “oversight.” Item 6 at 5-6. Although this is evidence that the Judge was required to consider, along with all the other evidence in the record, it is not sufficient to undermine her finding that Applicant had deliberately falsified his SCA. The challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence, that is, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1; See also ADP Case No. 08- 10098 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2012). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-04343 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board